No other work attributed to Lucian has aroused greater controversy than _Lucius or Ass_. All the literature about it is reviewed in Ben Edwin Perry’s epoch-making book _The Metamorphoses Ascribed to Lucius of Patrae_, which conclusively proves that _Lucius or Ass_ is an epitome of Lucian’s _Metamorphoses_, made by another writer. Perry analyzes Photius’ description of the lost Greek _Metamorphoses_ with its theory of the three versions of the ass-story,[356] and proves that Photius’ one mistake was in thinking that the name Lucius of Patrae referred to an author of a third _Metamorphoses_, which was probably the original of Lucian’s and Apuleius’ stories: Lucius of Patrae in _Lucius or Ass_ is the hero-narrator, not the author. Perry then with convincing logic reconstructs the probable content of the _Metamorphoses_ of which _Lucius or Ass_ is an epitome and with the same irrefutable reasoning discusses the nature of this original Greek novel. The basis of it was a folk-lore story of a transformation. The style was plain, the narrative rapid, the tone ironic. The narrator keeps the character of the hero of the adventures and never identifies himself with the author. The character of the hero is that of “an unique clown” with an absorbing and credulous interest in strange phenomena especially transformations. The final proof that the _Metamorphoses_ was satirical is “the simple fact that the _Eselmensch_ is a litterateur and an investigator of marvels.” “The generic title shows that the author regarded his story as a kind of commentary on the subject of metamorphoses, and writers who interested themselves in such things.”[357] This author, “second century Atticist, humorist, and satirist,” can be none other than Lucian himself, for the Greek _Metamorphoses_ is Lucianic in type, is a relaxation from serious work as is the _True History_; it shows the same satire of credulity that other works of Lucian (for example the _Alexander_) did; and it is colored by the same ironic humor. The epitome contains a striking Lucianic element although this is overlaid by philological errors. Perry also analyzes resemblances and differences between the reconstructed _Metamorphoses_ of Lucian and Apuleius’ novel, but this discussion I shall reserve for the next chapter. _Lucius or Ass_ is valuable in proving that Lucian wrote not one but two romances; that in both he developed a new type of romance, the satiric; that in each he maintained the same great qualities which mark his other writings: the quest for truth, intolerance of fraud and credulity; keen observation and realistic description; condensation, rapidity, clarity; dramatic irony. The two romances also show more than any other of Lucian’s writings his brilliant imaginative powers.